Why do conspiracy theorists always assume that nobody else is capable of questioning things for themselves? Just because people dont agree with them, it must be a given that they just "believe what they are told" but its the conspiracy theorists that insist in parroting the same CT tosh without questioning their own theories.

I was bored and decided to update my signature but i couldnt think of anything to put, so i decided to just put Bollocks!

Why do conspiracy theorists always assume that nobody else is capable of questioning things for themselves? Just because people dont agree with them, it must be a given that they just "believe what they are told" but its the conspiracy theorists that insist in parroting the same CT tosh without questioning their own theories.

Why not ask them?

Anyway .....

From what you say above Squizz you obviously haven't just believed what you are told from the US government and it's agencies, so what are your thoughts on WTC7 ?

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

My thoughts on WTC7 have ben made several times here in the past but to summarise....

Its nothing to do with any 'official' explanation but much more to do with the events surrounding any kind of controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions take many months of planning by demolition experts matched with many weeks of 'physical' weakening of the structure.... Planning and preparation that there is absolutely no evidence or even hint of taking place beforehand. There is evidence of some 'work' being carried out in WTC's 1&2 on the weekend before the attack but a few hours simply does not fit with the real time frame of such a monumental job.WTC 7 did take on some damage from falling debris.. a large corner of the building was destroyed. There was also a large fire inside described as an 'inferno' by the NYFD with the cause reported to be a ruptured gas main. Add to that, the massive shocks that the foundations would have received from the collapsing towers and it makes for a very unstable building.The 'official' reports can and will be shot to pieces but the fact remains that a 'controlled demolition' is nothing more than fantasy in the real world. I am open to suggestions regarding the collapse and i will happily entertain them but 'controlled demolition' is a serious non starter.

I was bored and decided to update my signature but i couldnt think of anything to put, so i decided to just put Bollocks!

Mr Squirrel wrote:My thoughts on WTC7 have ben made several times here in the past but to summarise....

Its nothing to do with any 'official' explanation but much more to do with the events surrounding any kind of controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions take many months of planning by demolition experts matched with many weeks of 'physical' weakening of the structure.... Planning and preparation that there is absolutely no evidence or even hint of taking place beforehand. There is evidence of some 'work' being carried out in WTC's 1&2 on the weekend before the attack but a few hours simply does not fit with the real time frame of such a monumental job.WTC 7 did take on some damage from falling debris.. a large corner of the building was destroyed. There was also a large fire inside described as an 'inferno' by the NYFD with the cause reported to be a ruptured gas main. Add to that, the massive shocks that the foundations would have received from the collapsing towers and it makes for a very unstable building.The 'official' reports can and will be shot to pieces but the fact remains that a 'controlled demolition' is nothing more than fantasy in the real world. I am open to suggestions regarding the collapse and i will happily entertain them but 'controlled demolition' is a serious non starter.

You make lots of speculations, but then strangely claim it's a 'fact' that it wasn't a controlled demolition. It's only a fact if you can prove it beyond reasonable doubt. And you can't.

Yes WTC7 did suffer some corner damage, pic here

and yes there was indeed some randomly sited fires in the building ( not one large fire ), most which had burnt out by the time the building collapsed

Yes you can say "preparing the building for demolition would have been an extensive task" , but you cannot say "preparing the building for demolition would have been an extensive task, therefore it would have been impossible"

Simply put, none of us know what level of access US/Israel Security Forces had to the whole building. We do know that US security services had lots of offices in that building. 911 has enabled Western interests to secure many trillions of dollars of profit over the next few decades, so in comparison investing considerable time to wire up a building as part of a false flag seems small change IMO.

But anyway ...... facts ....

1]It's a fact that no other steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire. Fact

2] It's a fact that the building collapsed straight down. we can all see the video of it collapsing. It's simple laws of physics that ALL the supporting columns of the building must have collapsed within milliseconds of each other was a straight down collapsed to have happened. Anything else and the building would not have collapsed straight down as it would have a variable resistance to it's fall around it's footprint

3] For part of it's collapse, the building fell at free fall speed. The only way this could happen is that there was NO RESISTANCE ( except air ) to it's fall. This supports fact 2] above regarding simultaneous failure. NIST even admitted this.

Yes the building was damaged and there were fires, but these were ASYMMETRICAL. the building collapsed SYMMETRICALLY

Also let's look at the investigation. Normally you'd expect an extensive investigation into such a collapse. Particularly as it was the FIRST collapse of a steel framed building where fire is involved ever. but no, the wreckage was cleared up faster than a rat up Katy Price's sewer pipe, and a new building erected. You'd almost think the new building had already been designed. In fact that's what I do believe.

And then there's NIST. NIST's original explanation obviously wasn't convincing enough for the US/Israel Security services, so they had to make a second attempt. Which still failed to explain WTC7. Why did their explanation fail? Well they were rather handicapped. not only was the physical evidecne swept up really quickly, NIST were not asked "Explain why and how WTC7 collapsed", they were told in advance why it collapsed, and only asked to explain how. No wonder they failed twice.

Now many people who opposed the official consipracy on WTC7 cite Lucky Larry's 'Pull It!" statement as evidence. I won't do that as it really means nothing, but then again many people who believe the official conspiracy theory like yourself, often cite the "It could never be kept secret!" argument as evidence against controlled demolition. Well things involving thousands and thousands of people have historically been kept secret and still are. Thousand were involved in the Manhattan Project and that was kept secret until they chose to make it public by dropping the bombs. And to this today defence research and constructions are kept highly secret

So what happened to WTC7. There are no facts that say a 'controlled demolition' is "nothing more than fantasy in the real world" as you claim. Of course there's no proof it was a controlled demolition either, but you have to use common sense and go with the most likely option. Someone telling me that a building which had all of it's supporting structures failing simultaneously and collapsed straight down, collapsed die to random damage and random fires, I'd say "yeah come on I wasn't born yesterday".

You probably know that when they rig up controlled demolitions, they time the shaped charges so that the centre section of the building drops a split second before the out section, in order to keep the building falling into it's own footprint. Now isn't it amazing that random fires and random damage, managed to replicate exactly the same thing?

One thing to remember here.. You keep parroting the phrase 'Falling into its own footprint' like all the WTC conspiracy theorists do... It didnt fall into its own footprint! - sure, It fell downwards like gravity strangely dictates but going down and falling into its own footprint are different things entirely. Just because it resembled a controlled demolition, it does not mean that it was one. This is not the first time that such a freakish collapse has happened and it will not be the last either... Back in the late 60's, 3 Hyperbolic cooling towers at Ferrybridge power station collapsed in strong (but not unreasonable so) winds. The winds caused vibrations within the structures and literally shook them to the ground. You are also incorrect when you state that no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire.. Again, thats just another Conspiracy theorist parrot phrase. Indeed, there have been many over the years and one such notable one was the Charleston Sofa Super Store fire in the US that claimed the lives of several firefighters. Steel and Concrete are not impervious to fire.. Concrete explodes when heated and steel looses its structural integrity at a fraction of the heat required to melt it.

Whoever was responsible for the attacks is still a reasonable debate but the buildings came down due to structural failure... That, i am certain of. The reaosns given by the CT brigade for the attacks and collapses are so many that even the CT crew cannot make their mind up on a conclusive one. False flags and insurance cons are the running favourites but nobody ever asks why they (The government/Buildings owners) would need to go to the trouble and expense of rigging a demolition job. The plane strikes and resulting fires would have been enough to warrant an insurance funded legitimate demolition job anyways if that had been the issue and the 'war' that resulted also would have been 'justified' as a result of the attacks.

There may be no smoke without fire but that dosent always mean that the fire was arson.

I was bored and decided to update my signature but i couldnt think of anything to put, so i decided to just put Bollocks!

Mr Squirrel wrote:One thing to remember here.. You keep parroting the phrase 'Falling into its own footprint' like all the WTC conspiracy theorists do... It didnt fall into its own footprint! - sure, It fell downwards like gravity strangely dictates but going down and falling into its own footprint are different things entirely. Just because it resembled a controlled demolition, it does not mean that it was one. This is not the first time that such a freakish collapse has happened and it will not be the last either... Back in the late 60's, 3 Hyperbolic cooling towers at Ferrybridge power station collapsed in strong (but not unreasonable so) winds. The winds caused vibrations within the structures and literally shook them to the ground. You are also incorrect when you state that no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire.. Again, thats just another Conspiracy theorist parrot phrase. Indeed, there have been many over the years and one such notable one was the Charleston Sofa Super Store fire in the US that claimed the lives of several firefighters. Steel and Concrete are not impervious to fire.. Concrete explodes when heated and steel looses its structural integrity at a fraction of the heat required to melt it.

Whoever was responsible for the attacks is still a reasonable debate but the buildings came down due to structural failure... That, i am certain of. The reaosns given by the CT brigade for the attacks and collapses are so many that even the CT crew cannot make their mind up on a conclusive one. False flags and insurance cons are the running favourites but nobody ever asks why they (The government/Buildings owners) would need to go to the trouble and expense of rigging a demolition job. The plane strikes and resulting fires would have been enough to warrant an insurance funded legitimate demolition job anyways if that had been the issue and the 'war' that resulted also would have been 'justified' as a result of the attacks.

There may be no smoke without fire but that dosent always mean that the fire was arson.

So you claim "It [WTC7didnt fall into its own footprint!" ? Well I'm afraid it did. These two pictures prove it

Charleston Sofa Super Store fire: The best you can do is a single story light framed warehouse type structure. Well that says it all really - It's a minutiae as aspect anyway.

Indeed, there have been many over the years

Well show us them then. show us a building that's similar to WTC7, not some single story lock up, that's steel framed and has collapsed due to fire. ( we really need a breath holding, goign blue in the face smiley )

Whoever was responsible for the attacks is still a reasonable debate but the buildings came down due to structural failure... That, i am certain of.

If who ever is responsible is still a reasonable debate then the claim that it was a false flag is still a reasonable debate. But don't forget WTC7 is just one aspect of 911. It can be proved a 757 didn't actually hit the pentagon and there also witnesses that both saw the plane travelling towards the pentagon and leaving the area. Now that opens up a can of worms for the other 911 events.

but the buildings came down due to structural failure... That, i am certain of.

Buildings? I thought we were discussing WTC7, a single building. So sticking to WTC7, you're ignoring the important points. Which are,

1] for WTC7 to collapse straight down into it's own footprint,which it did, ALL 50 odd outer columns must have failed at the same time, or within milliseconds of each other.

2] part of the Collapse as admitted by NIST, was at free fall speed. Which supports point 1]. now please explain how asymmetrical damage and afew random fires can cause such symettrical and simultaneous failure. America's official engineering department NIST can't even explain it, but given you're certain, maybe you oughta contact them so they can prepare a THIRD report which this time is conclusive.

I'll expect you'll ignore those 2 important points for a second time

You claimed a large corner of the building was damaged. In reality a small section of the corner of the building was damaged ...

The main damage was in the centre of the south side as shown on the diagram

You claim a raging inferno. this was nonsense. The Chinese building I linked to above was a raging inferno, not WTC7. You claim it didn't fall into it's own footprint, when it did.

Isn't it worth getting things correct before being 'certain' of something?

In fact the ONLY argument you have against it beign a controlled demolition is that you claim that the building couldn't have been wired up for such a demolition. Something you ( or I, or anyone else ) have absolutely no idea about.

Whereas the actual facts about WTC7, things we can prove, show that the chances of the collapse being due to the damage and fires, are slimmer than the chances of me shagging Kate Middleton in the middle of Parliament Sq.

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

Its late and im knackered but i shall try to briefly address some of your points while i slurp my nightcap. However, please dont accuse me of ignoring/avoiding issues again... You often 'miss' points and questions but i dont accuse you of deliberate avoidance - you ignorant prick.

"Falling into its own footprint"...The term is used in demolition when a building falls into its own perimeter. The pictures you have posted show a building that has not fallen within its own perimeter. It shows a building that has spread its debris away from its own perimeter, across streets and up against neighbouring buildings. There is shit everywhere. Now, do you expect gravity to distribute the debris far and wide across New York state? Of course not but the pictures are not typical of a 'clean' demolition job.

Fire and steel framed buildings...Why do you think that large steel framed buildings have their frames coated in fire resistant material and have sprinklers all over if fire was not such a dangerous element? The reason is that fire is hellishly dangerous to steel framed buildings. Steel is a very strong material until it gets hot - then it becomes very weak indeed. Heat softens and expands steel considerably from its natural state. Now, im sure you are aware of the old saying "The bigger they come, the harder they fall". Large heavy buildings such as WTC7 have many many thousands of tonnes of weight pushing down on their lower supports... much more than a flimsy 'lock up'. When that steel gets hot, it stays hot for a long time.. hot and soft. When a mega thousand tonne building starts to move in the direction of gravity.. 'resistance' becomes very minimal. If you want to see just how soft and weak steel becomes when heated, go and spend a day in a rolling mill.

NIST...Unlike yourself and many other conspiracy theorists.. i do not immerse myself in 'research' as you call it. I make my own opinions by way of what i see and matching them to my own experiences and knowledge in certain fields. I dont give a shite what NIST say and im pretty sure that if NIST had said thet the buildings had fallen due to Islamic terrorist strikes, you would be calling them the most corrupt bastards under the sun. Once again, you show your hypocritical nature by frequently denouncing 'official' reports but are quick to support them when they appear to support your own agendas. You speak of NIST almost as though they support the controlled demolition theory.. The reality is that they couldnt conclude with certainty the cause of the collapse. That- is a big difference.

My 'claims'I never claimed that it 'was a raging inferno'... I wasnt there and didnt see it but the reports i read did claim a 'raging inferno'... the reports you read claim otherwise. Well shit! who ya gunna believe?

'Secret too big'...You are again matching a military operation like the Manhattan project out in the remote desert with military personnel against a civilian workspace in one of the most densely populated areas in the world. The Manhattan project and 9/11 are entirely different beasts. Suspicious goings on in the MP were likely to stay within the military code of secrecy. 9/11 happened in a civilian area with not many people party to the official secrets act. If something was dodgy, somebody would have come forward by now and said "Ohh - i saw loads of weird shit before the attacks" etc but nobody has.

Anyways, i need a piss and bed now. Laters.

I was bored and decided to update my signature but i couldnt think of anything to put, so i decided to just put Bollocks!

Mr Squirrel wrote:Its late and im knackered but i shall try to briefly address some of your points while i slurp my nightcap. However, please dont accuse me of ignoring/avoiding issues again... You often 'miss' points and questions but i dont accuse you of deliberate avoidance - you ignorant prick.

"Falling into its own footprint"...The term is used in demolition when a building falls into its own perimeter. The pictures you have posted show a building that has not fallen within its own perimeter. It shows a building that has spread its debris away from its own perimeter, across streets and up against neighbouring buildings. There is shit everywhere. Now, do you expect gravity to distribute the debris far and wide across New York state? Of course not but the pictures are not typical of a 'clean' demolition job.

Given the idea of demolition is to avoid damaging nearby buildings, I think it did a pretty good job of not damaging buildings right next to it. WTC7 fell straight down into it's own footprint. Even recognised demolitions spill some debris into an area just around the perimter of the building. pedantics

Fire and steel framed buildings...Why do you think that large steel framed buildings have their frames coated in fire resistant material and have sprinklers all over if fire was not such a dangerous element? The reason is that fire is hellishly dangerous to steel framed buildings. Steel is a very strong material until it gets hot - then it becomes very weak indeed. Heat softens and expands steel considerably from its natural state. Now, im sure you are aware of the old saying "The bigger they come, the harder they fall". Large heavy buildings such as WTC7 have many many thousands of tonnes of weight pushing down on their lower supports... much more than a flimsy 'lock up'. When that steel gets hot, it stays hot for a long time.. hot and soft. When a mega thousand tonne building starts to move in the direction of gravity.. 'resistance' becomes very minimal. If you want to see just how soft and weak steel becomes when heated, go and spend a day in a rolling mill.

Was that supposed to explain the collapse of no resistance? Yes I've seen steel rolling mills and there's plenty of resistance, that's why they use huge presses and rollers. Less resistence than cold steel for sure, but still lots of resistence.

NIST...Unlike yourself and many other conspiracy theorists.. i do not immerse myself in 'research' as you call it. I make my own opinions by way of what i see and matching them to my own experiences and knowledge in certain fields.

Well given I make my own opinions by way of what I see and matching them with my own knowledge and given that you've claimed I'm a conspiracy theorist, then you must also be a conspiracy theorist. The "what I see" bit is called 'research'

" yourself and many other conspiracy theorists" - You must go around reading up on many conspiracy theorists then.

And what is exactly a conspiracy theorist? Is that a term for someone who doesn't blindly believe official explanations of events? Or is it a term for someone who claims someone or a group conspired to orchestrate an event?

If it's the latter than the US government and associated governments/Media are certainly Conspiracy Theorists. They claim a group of Muslims conspired to hijack 4 planes and use them to cause much damage on American soil. Now that's one pretty flaky conspiracy theory. Many of the so called suicide hijackers were found alive and well after 911, there's proof a 757 didn't hit the pentagon, plenty of witnesses near the pentagon that refute the official explanation too, WTC7's collapse was of a nature that almost certainly wasn't caused by fire and damage, etc, etc. 911 was even blamed on a group that doesn't exist and never existed. Hilarious.

I dont give a shite what NIST say and im pretty sure that if NIST had said thet the buildings had fallen due to Islamic terrorist strikes, you would be calling them the most corrupt bastards under the sun. Once again, you show your hypocritical nature by frequently denouncing 'official' reports but are quick to support them when they appear to support your own agendas. You speak of NIST almost as though they support the controlled demolition theory.. The reality is that they couldnt conclude with certainty the cause of the collapse. That- is a big difference.

I'm not being hypocritical at all. I've only had one viewpoint of NIST and as for other reports I take each one as I find it. NO hypcrisiy, and you can't show any

The reality is that they couldnt conclude with certainty the cause of the collapse. That- is a big difference.

No the reality is they were told the cause of the collapse, and were asked to show how this pre-determined cause of collapse happened.

My 'claims'I never claimed that it 'was a raging inferno'... I wasnt there and didnt see it but the reports i read did claim a 'raging inferno'... the reports you read claim otherwise. Well shit! who ya gunna believe?

I believe the actual photographic evidence more than any hyperbolic reports. No photos show a raging inferno, just random small fires.

'Secret too big'...You are again matching a military operation like the Manhattan project out in the remote desert with military personnel against a civilian workspace in one of the most densely populated areas in the world. The Manhattan project and 9/11 are entirely different beasts. Suspicious goings on in the MP were likely to stay within the military code of secrecy. 9/11 happened in a civilian area with not many people party to the official secrets act. If something was dodgy, somebody would have come forward by now and said "Ohh - i saw loads of weird shit before the attacks" etc but nobody has.

The old "it was too big and complicated to be a secret/lie" . Your paragraph above is full of baseless assumptions.

I knew you'd ignore the fact that all 50 odd outer columns would have to have failed simultaneously for the building to have collapsed straight down. Everyone who wants to believe the official theory always does ignore it. They ignore it becuase they know that random fires and random damages couldn't have caused such a simultaneous failure. They also know that freefall speed equals no resistance and that random fires and random damage couldn't have caused that either.

Anyways, i need a piss and bed now. Laters.

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

The 50 odd support columns failing at the same time should not automatically be cause for suspicion. We are talking about a building of tremendous weight and that weight is distributed evenly in its construction. When a number of columns fail, the remaining columns become severely overloaded. It takes not such a great leap of imagination to expect the remaining columns to 'give' simultaneously. The same can be said of 'freefall speed'... you only have to look at any controlled demolition to see those effects take place.In a controlled demolition, the main load bearing structure is removed beforehand in a meticulously planned and careful manner in order to keep the weight evenly distributed and keep the structure in place. Then, explosives are placed at selected points to bring the structure either straight down or in an intended direction. Usually, only the lower supports are 'blown' but the structure still falls at the phrased 'freefall speed'. With WTC7, if... and stress - IF, the structure failed at lower level, the building falling in such a manner is not unusual.Remember the Ferrybridge cooling towers story? These towers failed in winds lower that they were designed to withstand. Cooling towers are not flimsy structures either... They generally are made of steel reinforced concrete with no windows or doors along the way providing 'weak points'. Still, when towers like these have their lower supports removed by explosives or even cable tensioning, they come down at the phrased 'freefall speed'.

I ask again... What do you think any of the parties involved had to gain by an elaborate plan to wire these buildings (WTC's 1,2 & 7) up for a controlled demolition?It would be expensive, time consuming, risky (near impossible) to keep secret (remember, this wasnt in a desert with military personnel, it was in a very public area) and frankly, pointless. After the attacks, presuming they were 'in on it'.. nobody would have attempted to persuade the owners to keep them open and the insurance would have paid for their demolition. So why the need for such an elaborate 'con'?

I was bored and decided to update my signature but i couldnt think of anything to put, so i decided to just put Bollocks!

Mr Squirrel wrote:The 50 odd support columns failing at the same time should not automatically be cause for suspicion. We are talking about a building of tremendous weight and that weight is distributed evenly in its construction. When a number of columns fail, the remaining columns become severely overloaded. It takes not such a great leap of imagination to expect the remaining columns to 'give' simultaneously.

With respect, your grasp of the laws of physics,and logic is not showing much credibility in this discussion.

Firstly if only some of the columns fail then for starters it's NOT a simultaneous fail so you're contradicting yourself.

Secondly if only a number of columns fail then the building doesn't collapse in a straight down manner, it tips over somewhat to the direction of where the failng columns lie. Construct a model and knock some columns out. the other columns won't fail simultaneously, the model will tip over. it will tip over becuase the resistance is ASSYMETRICAL.

The 50 odd support columns failing at the same time should not automatically be cause for suspicion.

So on the contrary, it's a huge smoking gun, supported by the laws of physics

The same can be said of 'freefall speed'... you only have to look at any controlled demolition to see those effects take place.

Well that's the point. It was a controlled demolition.

In a controlled demolition, the main load bearing structure is removed beforehand in a meticulously planned and careful manner in order to keep the weight evenly distributed and keep the structure in place.

No it's not. if the main load bearing structure is removed then the building collapses.

Then, explosives are placed at selected points to bring the structure either straight down or in an intended direction. Usually, only the lower supports are 'blown' but the structure still falls at the phrased 'freefall speed'. With WTC7, if... and stress - IF, the structure failed at lower level, the building falling in such a manner is not unusual.

Well sure but my contention is WTC7 was a controlled demolition, so I agree with teh CD analogy

Remember the Ferrybridge cooling towers story? These towers failed in winds lower that they were designed to withstand. Cooling towers are not flimsy structures either... They generally are made of steel reinforced concrete with no windows or doors along the way providing 'weak points'. Still, when towers like these have their lower supports removed by explosives or even cable tensioning, they come down at the phrased 'freefall speed'.

I know the Ferry bridge Cooling towers, Seen 'em many times on my travels up the A1. I would iamgine that if these type of towers are demolished with explosives they would fall at freefall for some of their descent

I ask again... What do you think any of the parties involved had to gain by an elaborate plan to wire these buildings (WTC's 1,2 & 7) up for a controlled demolition?It would be expensive, time consuming, risky (near impossible) to keep secret (remember, this wasnt in a desert with military personnel, it was in a very public area) and frankly, pointless. After the attacks, presuming they were 'in on it'.. nobody would have attempted to persuade the owners to keep them open and the insurance would have paid for their demolition. So why the need for such an elaborate 'con'?

Before I answer this, everything you've said in that quote is irrelevant to proving it wasn't a controlled demolition, so we are entering into areas peripheral to whether it was a controlled demolition or not. The only thing I'm interested in regarding WTC and a controlled demolition are the facts. The facts are:

1] The building fell straight down into it's own footprint ( non pedantic decription )

2] the centre of the building started to collapse just before the perimeter. Which is no proof it was a controlled Demolition ( CD ), but falls udner the "I wasn't born yeseterday" ethos.

3] For the above to happen all 50 off outer columns must have collapsed simultaneously. Thanks for not continuing to ignoring this, but as shown above there's no getting awawy from that a simultaneous failure of 50 odd columns is not the result of asymmetrical damage and assymetrical fires

Soto asnwer the points:

It would be expensive

So? Money isn't an object for these people.

time consuming

Sure it would be. See next reply ...

risky (near impossible) to keep secret (remember, this wasnt in a desert with military personnel, it was in a very public area)

A very public area? How can you claim this? Personally I call nonsense on this claim. WTC7 was a tower block containing offices for many security services amongst other things. Even if some parts of the building were leased by private companies, you can be sure this building was NOT a very public area? Here's a challenge.... take a trip down to Canary wharf and try to just wander into and around the tower blocks there. The place is crawling with security. You'd be pounced upon within minutes. I know becuase I've been there. Even my car was swabbed for explosives. The World trade centre was alr3ady bombed in the 1990s, so please don't claim security was lapse before 2001

So although I happily agree that it would have taken some time to wire up WTC7 for demolition, I do not in slightest agree that it could no be done. People with the right security clearance could roam unchallenged in that building for months.

So your argument it's not the desert and thus big secrets couldn't be kept won't wash. And to support that, a factory making top secret fighter prototypes exists in the thick of urban LA California. Kept Top secret.

and frankly, pointless

you have absolutely no idea of any point ( or not ) to demolishing WTC7. There are various theories about this. Including a theory that an office in WTC7 was used as a planning room to orchestrate 911. Another theory claims WTC7 was demolished as a bonus to destroy damning evidence against one part of the security services being investigated by another part of the security services.

I have no solid views on these theories, but it all helps to try and join the dots, just like we try to join the dots on the Jimmy saville/Abuse scenario.

Lastly, what are your overall views on 911? Do you believe the official theory or are you undecided?

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

You think I really believe WTC7 fell due to fire and damage, but I'm just arguing it was a controlled demolition for the sake of it? Sorry but I believe the most likely thing that caused WTC7 to collapse was a preplanned controlled demolition. I cannot prove it, but that's just a belief based upon both common sense and rationale based upon the laws of physics

"dig my heels in" - why would I suddenly change view and concede to something I don't believe is correct. No one yet has been able to explain how random fires and random damage can cause 50 odd vertical columns to simultaneously fail.

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

You can put my last post down to early morning just-going-to-work tetchyness. However, I do believe that you are being unnecessarily pedantic. I neither expect you to change your opinions on the subject as a result of my ramblings but I do think that your suspicious mind is overriding 'common sense'. What I mean by 'common sense' is not only the ability to see the 'conspiracy theory' side (as I do) but also to be able to see the other reasons for these strange events... reasons that do not necessarily reflect the 'official' explanations but neither support the 'conspiracies' either. In some cases.. there is really no explanation to be logically concluded.My views on 9/11 on the whole are 'undecided' but after observing all the 'conspiracy theories' and the 'official' explanations, I lean strongly toward the 'official' explanations. I shall try and explain why.

I can see all the reasons why the CT believers believe the CT's.. The excuse to invade the middle east, the insurance scam, the 'fear' aspect and excuse to invade privacy.. a few just for reasons to orchestrate the attack. Then there is the unusual happenings.. the Pentagon attack, the collapse of WTC7, the Pennsylvania plane 'crash' etc... All these things and their 'CT' explanations provide good concise reasons to believe them but thats just it.... There is an old saying that “If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is” and thats the problem for me with the CT's... there is a good explanation for just about every aspect of the days events, unfortunately they are often just as elaborate, far fetched and flawed as the 'official' explanations.

To condense things... some of these CT 'flaws' are...

What happened to the passengers of the planes? Some of whom made phone calls to their families as the planes were hijacked. They described the events of the hijack before the planes were crashed. Were these people 'in' on it? How does a government persuade ordinary people to comit suicide? What about the hijackers? Were they also government agents or 'plants' also convinced to commit suicide? What about the pilots and cabin crew? Were they again party to the impending doom ahead?What happened to all these people? No CT has been able to concisely explain what happened to these people with any degree of 'realism'. Most involve theories about being dropped off at area 51 and exterminated or flown by remote planes guided by GPS but nothing explains the phone calls and descriptions given by those who perished to their own loved ones except for the very lame cobblers that these 'relatives' were actors.. Pleaaaaase!

Then there is the 'controlled demolition' aspects to these CT's.. Like it or not, controlled demolitions take months of prior planning and surveying, weeks of prior building work removing the buildings guts, explosive testing on site, fleets of trucks removing rubble and other demolished parts of building. Nobody saw a thing... nobody! There was a reported building works going on in one of the main buildings for a few hours over the previous weekend but nothing that could be compared with what would be needed to prep such enormous buildings for a controlled demolition. There is also the reasons why they would need to blow the buildings.. There was no need from an insurance POV the damage and bodycount alone would negate that need. The reason that it was to cover up evidence is also very lame. After a controlled explosion there would be more evidence left behind than it would be intended to conceal. Wires, charges and explosive residue at the very least. Your not suggesting that such an elaborate plan to cover up evidence would be less suspicious and easier to cover up than burning shredded papers and destroying harddrives with a lump hammer are you?

These are just for starters.. I dont deny that there was some unusual happenings on 9/11 but just because something is unusual or even suspicious.. it dosent mean that it was the work of some sinister insider dealings.... 'Shit happens' and its things that happen without due reason that gave birth to that phrase but also, 'if its too good to be true, it usually is' is also worth considering and the expectancy that everything should be explained in a cast iron way by the conspiracy theorists is quite ironic when much of the CT's have more holes in than a Swiss cheese. The video in the OP is illustrative of this... A very complicated process put into simple black and white terms when the reality is that life dosent work that way.

Anyway, im gunna work now.

I was bored and decided to update my signature but i couldnt think of anything to put, so i decided to just put Bollocks!

Mr Squirrel wrote:You can put my last post down to early morning just-going-to-work tetchyness. However, I do believe that you are being unnecessarily pedantic. I neither expect you to change your opinions on the subject as a result of my ramblings but I do think that your suspicious mind is overriding 'common sense'. What I mean by 'common sense' is not only the ability to see the 'conspiracy theory' side (as I do) but also to be able to see the other reasons for these strange events... reasons that do not necessarily reflect the 'official' explanations but neither support the 'conspiracies' either. In some cases.. there is really no explanation to be logically concluded.My views on 9/11 on the whole are 'undecided' but after observing all the 'conspiracy theories' and the 'official' explanations, I lean strongly toward the 'official' explanations. I shall try and explain why.

In terms of WTC7 all I've seen is the video of the building collapsing and some pictures of the aftermath and a few pictures of the random damage and random fires. And the calculated descentspeed, which is agreed upon by both NIST and those challenging the official theory.

In fact this is the ONLY evidence we have. I couldn't care less about the commonly cited "Pull It" stated by Lucky Larry, which many people use to claim it was a deliberately demolished. All I go on is the the evidence above.

The only facts we know about WTC7 is that it collapsed straight down, it sustained random damage and random fires. We also know it fell at free fall speed for part of it's descent towards the ground.

For the building to collapse in manner it did and at the speed it did, this would require ALL outer supporting columns to fail at the same time. Does this prove that it was a CD? Nope, but I would simply ask "what are the chances of random damage and random fires causing such a symmetrical collapse?"

You know as well as I do that when they controlled a demolition of buildings to fall straight down, they time the charges so that the centre of the building starts to collapse a tiny bit before the outer sections. Not so that it all falls inwards, but so none of it falls outwards.

The collapse of WTC7 perfectly matched a Controlled Demolition. Does this prove WTC7 was a Controleld Demolition? Nope.

However, to use that old saying... if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then it is a duck

I can see all the reasons why the CT believers believe the CT's.. The excuse to invade the middle east, the insurance scam, the 'fear' aspect and excuse to invade privacy.. a few just for reasons to orchestrate the attack. Then there is the unusual happenings.. the Pentagon attack, the collapse of WTC7, the Pennsylvania plane 'crash' etc... All these things and their 'CT' explanations provide good concise reasons to believe them but thats just it.... There is an old saying that “If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is” and thats the problem for me with the CT's... there is a good explanation for just about every aspect of the days events, unfortunately they are often just as elaborate, far fetched and flawed as the 'official' explanations.

Well that's exactly why I don't believe the Official Theory. It's just too far fetched given the evidecne we have

To condense things... some of these CT 'flaws' are...

What happened to the passengers of the planes? Some of whom made phone calls to their families as the planes were hijacked. They described the events of the hijack before the planes were crashed. Were these people 'in' on it? How does a government persuade ordinary people to comit suicide? What about the hijackers? Were they also government agents or 'plants' also convinced to commit suicide? What about the pilots and cabin crew? Were they again party to the impending doom ahead?What happened to all these people? No CT has been able to concisely explain what happened to these people with any degree of 'realism'. Most involve theories about being dropped off at area 51 and exterminated or flown by remote planes guided by GPS but nothing explains the phone calls and descriptions given by those who perished to their own loved ones except for the very lame cobblers that these 'relatives' were actors.. Pleaaaaase!

All good questions and I'm not going to speculate on most of those questions as I have no evidence to answer them, but suffice to say I've never seen any evidence to show the planes existed in the first place. Certainly a 757 didn't hit the pentagon. There is proof of that.

There have been people who have done some research and presented evidence that the other commercial planes didn't exist either. On the plane that flew over the pentagon as the explosion happened, I would speculate that was a military owned plane painted with commercial airline livery. Operation Northwoods speaks of exactly such tricks. It also speaks of conducting Mock funerals for ficticious victims of Cuban terror attacks.

So before you poo poo some theories as being outlandish, it's worth remembering the outlandish lengths the US Military was prepared to go in order to orchestrate false flags

Then there is the 'controlled demolition' aspects to these CT's.. Like it or not, controlled demolitions take months of prior planning and surveying, weeks of prior building work removing the buildings guts, explosive testing on site, fleets of trucks removing rubble and other demolished parts of building. Nobody saw a thing... nobody! There was a reported building works going on in one of the main buildings for a few hours over the previous weekend but nothing that could be compared with what would be needed to prep such enormous buildings for a controlled demolition. There is also the reasons why they would need to blow the buildings.. There was no need from an insurance POV the damage and bodycount alone would negate that need. The reason that it was to cover up evidence is also very lame. After a controlled explosion there would be more evidence left behind than it would be intended to conceal. Wires, charges and explosive residue at the very least. Your not suggesting that such an elaborate plan to cover up evidence would be less suspicious and easier to cover up than burning shredded papers and destroying harddrives with a lump hammer are you?

All I'm saying is that all 50 odd outer columns of WTC7 failed simultaneously and the centre of the building started collapse a split second before the outer part of the building. Also I'm saying the building collapsed at freefall speed for part of it's descent. These are facts. It's also a fact that controlled demolitions also happen in exactly the same way when they want the building to collapse straight down without anything falling outwards and damaging surrounding structures.

As regards WTC7, the wreckage was very quickly cleared up and trucked away quickly. Thus preventing a proper investigation. It's also worth noting that a new building ( which must have been designed in advance ) was very quickly erected. Compare that to the 'Freedom' Tower which still hasn't been completed 11 years on.

These are just for starters.. I dont deny that there was some unusual happenings on 9/11 but just because something is unusual or even suspicious.. it dosent mean that it was the work of some sinister insider dealings.... 'Shit happens' and its things that happen without due reason that gave birth to that phrase but also, 'if its too good to be true, it usually is' is also worth considering and the expectancy that everything should be explained in a cast iron way by the conspiracy theorists is quite ironic when much of the CT's have more holes in than a Swiss cheese. The video in the OP is illustrative of this... A very complicated process put into simple black and white terms when the reality is that life dosent work that way.

Anyway, im gunna work now.

It's interesting that we while are having a discussion between our own personal views on the matter, you keep referring to all manner of Conspiracy theories. I'm not interested in those. If some nutjob in Texas thinks space aliens did 911 then so what?

As regards the Video I posted, you complain of it being simple. Well the root problem with the Official Theory on WTC7 is very simple. I won't type it out yet again, but it starts off "50 odd outer columns ......"

IOW you can speculate all you like about the complexities of wiring up the building, but the fact remains, those 50 odd outer ....

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

smeggypants wrote:In terms of WTC7 all I've seen is the video of the building collapsing and some pictures of the aftermath and a few pictures of the random damage and random fires. And the calculated descentspeed, which is agreed upon by both NIST and those challenging the official theory.

In fact this is the ONLY evidence we have. I couldn't care less about the commonly cited "Pull It" stated by Lucky Larry, which many people use to claim it was a deliberately demolished. All I go on is the the evidence above.

The only facts we know about WTC7 is that it collapsed straight down, it sustained random damage and random fires. We also know it fell at free fall speed for part of it's descent towards the ground.

For the building to collapse in manner it did and at the speed it did, this would require ALL outer supporting columns to fail at the same time. Does this prove that it was a CD? Nope, but I would simply ask "what are the chances of random damage and random fires causing such a symmetrical collapse?"

You know as well as I do that when they controlled a demolition of buildings to fall straight down, they time the charges so that the centre of the building starts to collapse a tiny bit before the outer sections. Not so that it all falls inwards, but so none of it falls outwards.

The collapse of WTC7 perfectly matched a Controlled Demolition. Does this prove WTC7 was a Controleld Demolition? Nope.

However, to use that old saying... if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then it is a duck

The problem with that statement is that NIST concludes that

NIST wrote:the failure of just one column (Column 79) the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

So what now? Are NIST now corrupt lying bastards in the pockets of the US administration?

smeggypants wrote:Well that's exactly why I don't believe the Official Theory. It's just too far fetched given the evidecne we have

Why exactly is the 'official' story 'far fetched'?

smeggypants wrote:All good questions and I'm not going to speculate on most of those questions as I have no evidence to answer them, but suffice to say I've never seen any evidence to show the planes existed in the first place. Certainly a 757 didn't hit the pentagon. There is proof of that.

I would agree on the Pentagon strike.. that was odd but as for the 2 planes that hit the trade centre towers, i think its pretty certain to say that those planes existed. If you mean that they were not hijacked commercial airliners.. OK but i think personally that such a viewpoint is taking scepticism to the extreme.

As for the passengers and crews who 'disappeared'... i think those questions are highly relevant and indeed crucial for the CT believers to explain with certainty if anybody is to take the CT's seriously. (By CT, i use the expression in general terms for 'alternative to the official' stories)

smeggypants wrote:There have been people who have done some research and presented evidence that the other commercial planes didn't exist either. On the plane that flew over the pentagon as the explosion happened, I would speculate that was a military owned plane painted with commercial airline livery. Operation Northwoods speaks of exactly such tricks. It also speaks of conducting Mock funerals for ficticious victims of Cuban terror attacks.

So before you poo poo some theories as being outlandish, it's worth remembering the outlandish lengths the US Military was prepared to go in order to orchestrate false flags

I dont deny that the Military go to lengths to perform operations of any kind but when the operations involve so many members of the general public and in highly public areas.. the risk of being 'found out' is extremely high. IMO, the 'demolition' of these buildings would be a risk too far.

smeggypants wrote:All I'm saying is that all 50 odd outer columns of WTC7 failed simultaneously and the centre of the building started collapse a split second before the outer part of the building. Also I'm saying the building collapsed at freefall speed for part of it's descent. These are facts. It's also a fact that controlled demolitions also happen in exactly the same way when they want the building to collapse straight down without anything falling outwards and damaging surrounding structures.

As regards WTC7, the wreckage was very quickly cleared up and trucked away quickly. Thus preventing a proper investigation. It's also worth noting that a new building ( which must have been designed in advance ) was very quickly erected. Compare that to the 'Freedom' Tower which still hasn't been completed 11 years on.

Ahem.... One column Bluebold.. Not quite. Its also worth noting the location of column 79... virtually slap bang in the centre of the building no less. Buildings that collapse have a tendency to collapse downwards. Im unaware of any building collapses that fall in any other direction unless they are pushed in said direction. I am interested to know which direction other than downwards you think they should have fallen in. Further, the 'freefall speed' aspect is small beans IMO.. we are talking about very tall and heavy buildings and when such weight starts to move, not much other than solid ground is going to stop or slow it down. Remember that a set weight is only that weight when stationary... when it starts to move, that weight is increased proportionately to the speed.The 'Clean up' wasnt that quick in reality.. 6 months is a long time for such a clean up. Following demolition of many high rise estates in the mid 90's, removal of the crap took just a couple of weeks but of course, in those cases, they were not sifting the debris for 'evidence' and human remains. This point is worth considering with the CD theory... how many trucks and over what amount of time would be needed to clear up the preparation waste?As for the replacement buildings... thats irrelevant really. Many architects have buildings designed and ready to be built.. they just need the land, the finance and the permission.

smeggypants wrote:It's interesting that we while are having a discussion between our own personal views on the matter, you keep referring to all manner of Conspiracy theories. I'm not interested in those. If some nutjob in Texas thinks space aliens did 911 then so what?

As regards the Video I posted, you complain of it being simple. Well the root problem with the Official Theory on WTC7 is very simple. I won't type it out yet again, but it starts off "50 odd outer columns ......"

IOW you can speculate all you like about the complexities of wiring up the building, but the fact remains, those 50 odd outer ....

Ah, the 50 odd outer columns? Not the ONE that NIST claim? However, the complexities of wiring for a CD remain valid.

I was bored and decided to update my signature but i couldnt think of anything to put, so i decided to just put Bollocks!

smeggypants wrote:In terms of WTC7 all I've seen is the video of the building collapsing and some pictures of the aftermath and a few pictures of the random damage and random fires. And the calculated descentspeed, which is agreed upon by both NIST and those challenging the official theory.

In fact this is the ONLY evidence we have. I couldn't care less about the commonly cited "Pull It" stated by Lucky Larry, which many people use to claim it was a deliberately demolished. All I go on is the the evidence above.

The only facts we know about WTC7 is that it collapsed straight down, it sustained random damage and random fires. We also know it fell at free fall speed for part of it's descent towards the ground.

For the building to collapse in manner it did and at the speed it did, this would require ALL outer supporting columns to fail at the same time. Does this prove that it was a CD? Nope, but I would simply ask "what are the chances of random damage and random fires causing such a symmetrical collapse?"

You know as well as I do that when they controlled a demolition of buildings to fall straight down, they time the charges so that the centre of the building starts to collapse a tiny bit before the outer sections. Not so that it all falls inwards, but so none of it falls outwards.

The collapse of WTC7 perfectly matched a Controlled Demolition. Does this prove WTC7 was a Controleld Demolition? Nope.

However, to use that old saying... if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then it is a duck

The problem with that statement is that NIST concludes that

NIST wrote:the failure of just one column (Column 79) the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

So what now? Are NIST now corrupt lying bastards in the pockets of the US administration?

The building collapsed straight down. This means all 50 odd outer columns would have to fail simultaneously. NIST can say what it likes, and indeed NIST have tried TWICE to explain the collapse of WTC7 and they still can't.

Are NIST in the pockets of the American Regime? Well as I've said before NIST were NOT asked to find out what caused WTC7 to collapse. They were TOLD what made WTC7collapse and asked to detail that process.

What NIST are trying to do is find an explanation that fits and already pre-determined conclusion

smeggypants wrote:Well that's exactly why I don't believe the Official Theory. It's just too far fetched given the evidecne we have

Why exactly is the 'official' story 'far fetched'?

Because it's explanation of the Pentagon, WTC7, Shankville, the ability of "towelheads" to fly commerical airliners with such accuracy, especially as several of them were found alive and well after 911, thus rendering them capable of surviving a huge jet fuel fireball ), the collapse of WTC1 and 2 deies bioth common sense, the laws of physics and the evidence.

The only reason the Official theory flies is because under Kings New Clothes ethos, the Mainstream Media abd Maisntream Politicians dare not say the Kins is naked

smeggypants wrote:All good questions and I'm not going to speculate on most of those questions as I have no evidence to answer them, but suffice to say I've never seen any evidence to show the planes existed in the first place. Certainly a 757 didn't hit the pentagon. There is proof of that.

I would agree on the Pentagon strike.. that was odd but as for the 2 planes that hit the trade centre towers, i think its pretty certain to say that those planes existed. If you mean that they were not hijacked commercial airliners.. OK but i think personally that such a viewpoint is taking scepticism to the extreme.

Why is it extreme? Waht about the theory that 19 'towelheads' were able to hijack planes with boxcutters and fly them accurately into buildings with no training on commercial Airliners ( Plenty of real pilots have testified tohis was nonsense ) and then some of them come out uinscathed and alive. especially as on oneof te buildings the alleged damage to that building defies the laws of physics and reality that a 757 could ever have caused such damage. That's a lala land theory compared tothe US Military painting up aircraft with commerical livery and comverting them to drones. All ofwhich they had the resources to implement and ahve been proven to have planned exact such events in the past ( operation northwoods )

As for the passengers and crews who 'disappeared'... i think those questions are highly relevant and indeed crucial for the CT believers to explain with certainty if anybody is to take the CT's seriously. (By CT, i use the expression in general terms for 'alternative to the official' stories)

Well yes they are relevant in terms of explaining the WHOLE event, and I would like to know whether they actually existed and if so what happened to them.

but they aren't relevent in proving or disproving certain aspects of 911, like WTC7 and The Pentagon

smeggypants wrote:There have been people who have done some research and presented evidence that the other commercial planes didn't exist either. On the plane that flew over the pentagon as the explosion happened, I would speculate that was a military owned plane painted with commercial airline livery. Operation Northwoods speaks of exactly such tricks. It also speaks of conducting Mock funerals for ficticious victims of Cuban terror attacks.

So before you poo poo some theories as being outlandish, it's worth remembering the outlandish lengths the US Military was prepared to go in order to orchestrate false flags

I dont deny that the Military go to lengths to perform operations of any kind but when the operations involve so many members of the general public and in highly public areas.. the risk of being 'found out' is extremely high. IMO, the 'demolition' of these buildings would be a risk too far.

Involve so many members of the general public? You're kidding right? Excuse me buddy? Mind giving me a hand wiring up this building for controlled demolition?

Sure there was a risk. They had a risk of being found out about the 757 hitting the Pentagon. They have been found out. It can be proven a 757 didn't hit the pentagon

smeggypants wrote:All I'm saying is that all 50 odd outer columns of WTC7 failed simultaneously and the centre of the building started collapse a split second before the outer part of the building. Also I'm saying the building collapsed at freefall speed for part of it's descent. These are facts. It's also a fact that controlled demolitions also happen in exactly the same way when they want the building to collapse straight down without anything falling outwards and damaging surrounding structures.

As regards WTC7, the wreckage was very quickly cleared up and trucked away quickly. Thus preventing a proper investigation. It's also worth noting that a new building ( which must have been designed in advance ) was very quickly erected. Compare that to the 'Freedom' Tower which still hasn't been completed 11 years on.

Ahem.... One column Bluebold.. Not quite.

No not one column. the 50 odd outer columns of WTC7 must have failed simulataneously for the building to collapse straight down. had those columns failed progressively the building wouldn'y have fallen straight down, it would have tilted over as the resistence to it's collapse wouldn't have been equal all around it's perimeter.

Its also worth noting the location of column 79... virtually slap bang in the centre of the building no less. Buildings that collapse have a tendency to collapse downwards. Im unaware of any building collapses that fall in any other direction unless they are pushed in said direction. I am interested to know which direction other than downwards you think they should have fallen in. Further, the 'freefall speed' aspect is small beans IMO.. we are talking about very tall and heavy buildings and when such weight starts to move, not much other than solid ground is going to stop or slow it down. Remember that a set weight is only that weight when stationary... when it starts to move, that weight is increased proportionately to the speed.

Unfortunately the laws of physics don't change with the size of the building, and while the mass of an object does indeed noticeably increase close to light speed, were talking a mass falling at freefall speed due to earth's gravity. I think terminal velocity is about 120mph, not 186,000 miles per second

The free fall portion of the buildings collapse is a huge deal. As it means that it was falling without any part of the structure resisting it.

The 'Clean up' wasnt that quick in reality.. 6 months is a long time for such a clean up. Following demolition of many high rise estates in the mid 90's, removal of the crap took just a couple of weeks but of course, in those cases, they were not sifting the debris for 'evidence' and human remains. This point is worth considering with the CD theory... how many trucks and over what amount of time would be needed to clear up the preparation waste?

Do buildings ALWAYS have structure removed prior to controlled demolition. I think you're asuming they do

As for the replacement buildings... thats irrelevant really. Many architects have buildings designed and ready to be built.. they just need the land, the finance and the permission.

Yup they have trapezoidal footprint buildings that fit into the footprint of the previous buildinf in stock all the time

smeggypants wrote:It's interesting that we while are having a discussion between our own personal views on the matter, you keep referring to all manner of Conspiracy theories. I'm not interested in those. If some nutjob in Texas thinks space aliens did 911 then so what?

As regards the Video I posted, you complain of it being simple. Well the root problem with the Official Theory on WTC7 is very simple. I won't type it out yet again, but it starts off "50 odd outer columns ......"

IOW you can speculate all you like about the complexities of wiring up the building, but the fact remains, those 50 odd outer ....

Ah, the 50 odd outer columns? Not the ONE that NIST claim? However, the complexities of wiring for a CD remain valid.

if I were you I'd forget about that one column nonsense. NIST don't claim just one columns failed for the building to collapse. NIST claim that one column led to the simultaneous collapse of all 50 odd outer columns.

Assuming NIST aren't corrupt, and I don't believe they are, the problem NIST had is that they were told to explain a foregone conclusion. A proper investigation would have involved all possibilities. I think it must have been very difficult for NIST. They didn't have any structure to physically investigate IIRC as it was cleared up quickly ( I believe the steel was melted down for recycling pretty quickly too ).

In fact it's a testament to how difficult it was to provide an explanation to a foregone conclusion, e they had to make things fit, they failed the first time, and launched a second investigation and report, once again hamstrung by having to work within a foregone conclusion. Failed again.

here's an analysis that has gone into it in far mroedetail than I have and explains both the nonsense from NIST and what acutally happened

Im not going to bother quoting your last post Smegs but i will pick up on a couple of things..

NIST...You dont care what NIST say? Previously, you were using the NIST reports as some kind of 'support' for your theories... now, as predicted, you are dismissing the findings by NIST that only one column needed to fail to bring about total building collapse because it rendered your theory as nonsense. You claim not to be hypocritical, your hypocrisy beggars belief.

Terrorists turning up alive and well... Well, we only have the claims of certain media to go on dont we? I havent met them, you havent met them and they certainly have not been brought to the attention of the world in a 'large' manner. Indeed, even if they had turned up alive and well and paraded across the worlds mainstream media (The media that you distrust so) ... so what of it? Its quite common practice within the criminal world to steal other peoples identity. Stolen and forged passports have long been used by criminals as means to commit crimes without being caught before the crime has been committed. So why is it so suspicious that somebody turns up alive after the only evidence for them being involved and killed was some easily forged documents?

Pilots claims... I know some Pilots have claimed that the terorists couldnt have piloted the planes with their limited skills but there have been many Pilots who have not made such claims and supported the notion that they could quite easily perform the tasks they did. I view those claims much like this..... I know many Truck drivers that claim to non truck drivers that driving trucks is almost a genius like skill and the mere mortal would not be able to do so. That claim is the claims of arrogant people purporting their trade as something that it isnt. A remotely competent car driver could drive a truck in simple terms. They could put it in gear and make it move, maybe change a few gears, they could steer it and make it stop but without some quality training over a few weeks, they would stand no chance of passing the test and rest assured, the public would be in danger but to perform the simple tasks of moving and steering - no problem.The pilots fall in the same category.. They didnt need to perform the hard tasks of taxing along the runway, taking off or landing. All they had to do was gain control (i will come to that later) point the thing in the direction of the towers and open the taps. Basic flying skill is all that is needed there and no 'honest' pilot worth his salt would dispute that.

Taking control with box cutters...Yes, its hard to believe that a number of people working as a team could board a plane and take it over by threatening the passengers and crew with sharp knives and threats of bombs about their persons. Remember that pre-9/11, no hijacker had deliberately flown the plane into buildings. The general protocol at the time was to comply with the hijackers requests, usually flying somewhere and landing to then make negotiations with professional negotiators. Generally, if you did what you were told, the hijack ended with little or no lives lost. Nobody expected what happened after the hijackers took control on 9/11 to happen. Its understandable that passengers and crew chose not to tangle with a number of allegedly armed nutcases... Given previous hijacks, keeping calm and carrying on was the best policy at the time. Remember also that pre-9/11, internal flights in the US were treated almost like bus journeys.. security was very lax and the possibility of somebody getting knives and bombs onto the planes was much more likely than it is now.

With respect, you are focusing your theories far too much on situations and life in general after the event than before it. The same can be said for many of the examples you give.. they are in reflection of the CT theories you have indoctrinated yourself with. You wish to question the 'official' versions far more than you are willing to question the CT's and you cannot see the hypocrisy within your remarks. This is a shame. Your an intelligent fella but you have had your brain filled with anti-western (regime) propaganda from dubious sources for so long, you cannot see the wood for the trees.The truth is, A very small number of pissed off Terrorists from probably an Islamic region conducted a well planned attack on the US on September 11th 2001. This group of people may not have belonged to a 'major' terrorist network but the result was successful on their part. They gave the west (US especially) a poke in the eye that they would never forget. So much so, here we are 11 years on still talking about it and i dare say, we will probably still be talking about it in 50 years time.

I was bored and decided to update my signature but i couldnt think of anything to put, so i decided to just put Bollocks!